Imagine playing ultra bullet
@VOLDEMORT100192 said in #5:
> They shouldn't be called "chess".
"People say this isn't chess, that isn't chess. They just say it because they're bad at it." - GM penguingim1
> They shouldn't be called "chess".
"People say this isn't chess, that isn't chess. They just say it because they're bad at it." - GM penguingim1
@ThePracticeGuy said in #18:
> You clearly are a kid. No need to explain how I know that.
> Anyway, I only played bullet chess for 2 years and I became a good overall chess player.
> But then I played some slow blitz and some rapid and I become way better.
>
> The reason you play Bullet is important.
> If you play blindly and just do fast moves, you will lose most of your games (with the exception of ultrabullet)
> But if you play bullet trying to LEARN something from it (other than speed), you can become a good chess player.
>
> I was able to scan tactics faster, improve my reaction time, play more games (because each game lasted a short time, I was able to play more games), and so on.
>
> More info: lichess.org/@/ThePracticeGuy/blog/time-controls-pros--cons-of-each/9gVMYODg
You're right, ThePracticeGuy. Bullet is a huge test of skill and reaction time. Quality of moves, as well as speed, of course, are needed in Bullet.
...but when you're explaining all that to people who don't play ultra/hyper/bullet, they'll get defensive about their inability to play these super-fast time controls that you are able to do
> You clearly are a kid. No need to explain how I know that.
> Anyway, I only played bullet chess for 2 years and I became a good overall chess player.
> But then I played some slow blitz and some rapid and I become way better.
>
> The reason you play Bullet is important.
> If you play blindly and just do fast moves, you will lose most of your games (with the exception of ultrabullet)
> But if you play bullet trying to LEARN something from it (other than speed), you can become a good chess player.
>
> I was able to scan tactics faster, improve my reaction time, play more games (because each game lasted a short time, I was able to play more games), and so on.
>
> More info: lichess.org/@/ThePracticeGuy/blog/time-controls-pros--cons-of-each/9gVMYODg
You're right, ThePracticeGuy. Bullet is a huge test of skill and reaction time. Quality of moves, as well as speed, of course, are needed in Bullet.
...but when you're explaining all that to people who don't play ultra/hyper/bullet, they'll get defensive about their inability to play these super-fast time controls that you are able to do
@Phil224 said in #9:
> Nether of which gives you time to think, your simply just premoveing everymove, it doesn’t require skill but requires speed.
Yes, it's true that there is a very limited amount of time to think, but the skill that it requires to play ultra and hyper well can't be dismissed—there's a lot of skill involved. Skill when it comes down not only to quality of moves, but reaction time (board vision); tricks of the trade (cheapo tricks); speed (as you mentioned); and an ability not to get tilted (there is a lot of managing tilt involved because, for instance, at times you're going to be completely winning but you have like 0.1 seconds left and unfortunately lose on time, when you feel like you barely lost and deserved to win because you had Mate in 1 if you just had an extra fraction of a second).
> Nether of which gives you time to think, your simply just premoveing everymove, it doesn’t require skill but requires speed.
Yes, it's true that there is a very limited amount of time to think, but the skill that it requires to play ultra and hyper well can't be dismissed—there's a lot of skill involved. Skill when it comes down not only to quality of moves, but reaction time (board vision); tricks of the trade (cheapo tricks); speed (as you mentioned); and an ability not to get tilted (there is a lot of managing tilt involved because, for instance, at times you're going to be completely winning but you have like 0.1 seconds left and unfortunately lose on time, when you feel like you barely lost and deserved to win because you had Mate in 1 if you just had an extra fraction of a second).
@bugfan said in #32:
> "People say this isn't chess, that isn't chess. They just say it because they're bad at it." - GM penguingim1
Even GMs can say stupid things. People have different reasons for their opinion.
Classical is what basic chess is. Other time settings have their reasons but time shortage is not part of a good game.
> "People say this isn't chess, that isn't chess. They just say it because they're bad at it." - GM penguingim1
Even GMs can say stupid things. People have different reasons for their opinion.
Classical is what basic chess is. Other time settings have their reasons but time shortage is not part of a good game.
@bugfan said in #32:
> "People say this isn't chess, that isn't chess. They just say it because they're bad at it." - GM penguingim1
Ok, well... my mistake.
> "People say this isn't chess, that isn't chess. They just say it because they're bad at it." - GM penguingim1
Ok, well... my mistake.
chesscom introduces new variant ultra for 4 players - 6 sec
@Aluminium-27 said in #35:
> Even GMs can say stupid things. People have different reasons for their opinion.
>
> Classical is what basic chess is. Other time settings have their reasons but time shortage is not part of a good game.
I see what you're saying, but time is part of even the longest games. The longest OTB games I have played are 6+ hours long, it can't get much longer than that without players getting drained mentally (which they do in a game so long). OTB chess is very draining mentally. I played in a tournament a couple of years ago where by Round 9, in the Open section, almost every game in the top 15 boards were agreed to a draw. Even in a 6-hour game, I remember in the past when I played these 2 hour in 40 moves, 1 hour sudden death - I'd even get into time trouble a lot. In the past, I used to be horrible at managing my time. I'd manage my time the same way I took tests at school. Time management is a huge part of the game, and I can't really say that OTB because I'm only 1900-2000 FIDE at the moment (soon I will be like uh much much higher rated), so I am not qualified to speak about how to manage time in chess when it comes to OTB chess, but you have to manage your time in ultra, hyper, blitz, rapid, classical, everything. I play hyper and ultra all the time; speaking from experience, time trouble definitely exists in 6+hour games. There isn't less of a factor of time shortage, the longer the time control of a game is. That's because chess is that complex.
> Even GMs can say stupid things. People have different reasons for their opinion.
>
> Classical is what basic chess is. Other time settings have their reasons but time shortage is not part of a good game.
I see what you're saying, but time is part of even the longest games. The longest OTB games I have played are 6+ hours long, it can't get much longer than that without players getting drained mentally (which they do in a game so long). OTB chess is very draining mentally. I played in a tournament a couple of years ago where by Round 9, in the Open section, almost every game in the top 15 boards were agreed to a draw. Even in a 6-hour game, I remember in the past when I played these 2 hour in 40 moves, 1 hour sudden death - I'd even get into time trouble a lot. In the past, I used to be horrible at managing my time. I'd manage my time the same way I took tests at school. Time management is a huge part of the game, and I can't really say that OTB because I'm only 1900-2000 FIDE at the moment (soon I will be like uh much much higher rated), so I am not qualified to speak about how to manage time in chess when it comes to OTB chess, but you have to manage your time in ultra, hyper, blitz, rapid, classical, everything. I play hyper and ultra all the time; speaking from experience, time trouble definitely exists in 6+hour games. There isn't less of a factor of time shortage, the longer the time control of a game is. That's because chess is that complex.
@bugfan said in #38:
> I see what you're saying, but time is part of even the longest games.
You can play chess without time control. Time is part of most games but time is not part of chess itself. This is the difference between turn-based strategy game (like Heroes of Might and Magic III) and real-time strategy game (like Stellaris). Time control is essentially needed to ensure some limits of how long the game can be. Anyway, time trouble in 6h game cannot be like in hyper/ultra, unless you really messed up and there is no increment.
> I see what you're saying, but time is part of even the longest games.
You can play chess without time control. Time is part of most games but time is not part of chess itself. This is the difference between turn-based strategy game (like Heroes of Might and Magic III) and real-time strategy game (like Stellaris). Time control is essentially needed to ensure some limits of how long the game can be. Anyway, time trouble in 6h game cannot be like in hyper/ultra, unless you really messed up and there is no increment.
@bugfan said in #32:
> "People say this isn't chess, that isn't chess. They just say it because they're bad at it." - GM penguingim1
good point
> "People say this isn't chess, that isn't chess. They just say it because they're bad at it." - GM penguingim1
good point
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.